|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,474 Year: 3,731/9,624 Month: 602/974 Week: 215/276 Day: 55/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
quote: You've already made it as clear as you can that you will never abandon your point, because the bible tells you so. So don't play coy and suggest that if we could only phrase our arguments of words of one syllable or less, so that you can understand, you will agree that we are correct.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I just dealt with Dr. A's post about the Nobel Prize winners. No matter how many times I've said creationists do not reject science it never gets through. He's upbraiding me severely for supposedly demeaning working scientists or their scientific work. I don't do that ... ... unless, apparently (a) it conflicts with your prejudices or (b) it is expressed in scientific terminology or (c) you don't understand it, in which case it can be dismissed out of hand.
I argue against the THEORY of evolution and the old earth and I do ridicule THAT thinking, and naturally all that is mixed up with true scientific work so it's hard to sort it all out. Evolutionistic explanations are given by true working scientists who do good work, I don't doubt that. I'm trying to attack particular ideas on the ground that they aren't really scientific, and I really don't think these unscientific ideas have anything to do with the real scientific work that is done, though those who do the work think it does just because it's so interwoven with everything they do. I think it's just a piece of unnecessary baggage they haul around with them that has nothing to do with the true work. Well, either that, or you don't understand science better than 72 Nobel laureates put together. Perhaps you should consider this possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1277 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
One doesn't need to know everything about a field to know enough to make a particular limited point. That's all I've ever claimed. No one expects you to know EVERYTHING, that's silly. Who knows EVERYTHING about any subject in science? You have learned some superficial things about genetics that seem to support your position, but that is where you stop. When you dig deeper into the subject you find that these superficial things are just that, superficial. You are not willing to dig deeper or to listen to those who have.
HBD's paragraph is about aspects of genetics that have nothing to do with the point I'm making How would you know they have nothing to do with your point since you couldn't make any sense of them. If you don't understand the argument, you can't claim it is not relevant. Or was it that you saw the words "nested hierarchy" and then just dismissed the whole argument? Without even considering what I was getting at?
What happened to the Pod Mrcaru lizards is very easy to grasp without understanding all the mechanisms of genetics What happens in breeding animals is very easy to grasp with the most rudimentary understanding of genetics. Except you don't know what happens in either case. You think you "grasp" it, but your grasp is very superficial. It doesn't hold up under more intense scrutiny. Avoiding that scrutiny may keep the illusion up for yourself, but is not exactly honest or scientific. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
No creationist has ever been able to explain sorting of geology or biology. Funny how they can look at living things and see "intricate design" (Faith even mentioned that a drop of water is designed) and cite that observation as evidence of a designer; but then look at the geological column and the fossil record and see that as evidence of the random sorting of a global flood. HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2720 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Faith.
Faith writes: When Jesus does the miracle He doesn't bring anything new into existence, He miraculously multiplied things that were already in existence... ...He gives us all kinds of things, and things unique or brand-new to each of us, but doesn't create them brand-new out of nothing as He created all things at the Creation. In the loose sense of the term, of course God created you, created you as a unique human being, but all the parts that go into you from all the parts of the body to your soul out of whatever His recipe is for human souls, were already in existence since the original Creation week. These, I think, are the salient points of your post. It seems that you view "Creation" as referring to the creation of templates or prototypes, rather than the creation of individual things, is that correct? So, there's is 'creation,' and then there is 'CreationTM', so to speak. It's certainly a valid position, but it feels an awful lot like splitting hairs in the name of specific -- and somewhat strained -- interpretation of the phrase "rested from all his work" (Genesis 2:2). Is there some other reason (other than Genesis 2:2) why you think God isn't creating things anymore? I mean, clearly God didn't have any qualms about going back to work after Creation Week, because the Bible has Him doing all kinds of miracles well after Creation Week ended. And, if He can go back to work, what's stopping Him from going back to 'creation'? Are you willing to consider that maybe God can and does still create things? Or are you now thinking about ways to interpret the word 'work'? Is there also going to be a 'work' and 'WorkTM' now?
Faith writes: First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam. Okay, but did God actually 'CreateTM' Adam, or did He merely 'create' Adam? Genesis 1:26-27 describes God as creating man "in His own image" and "after His own likeness." That sounds like God was working from a pre-existing template, which would mean Adam is not the actual prototype. So, if we're following your strict definition of "creation," God therefore did not actually create Adam.
Faith writes: I skimmed your references to "fiery objects" -- not sure about the first one, the second one the destruction of Sodom? The third the fire from heaven that consumed Elijah's sacrifice? I don't see creation here either, again just miracles making use of already-created things, in this case fire. I cited Exodus 10, when I was supposed to cite Exodus 9, where the 7th plague was described as "fire mixed with hail." But, the newer translations apparently translate it as "lightning," so I was wrong to include that example.
Faith writes: First, your physical body follows the pattern God created when He created Adam. He created the DNA that all physical bodies possess, and the system that combines the genes from the parents to make the body of the child. So again, there is no creation there, just one of countless expressions or products of the system God created on the sixth day. Great, so I was not created by God.
Faith writes: Blue Jay writes: Clearly, your claim that "Creation ended with Genesis 2" causes some tension with the core components of the Creationist belief system, so perhaps you should reconsider it. No, it turns out to be a semantic problem in the end rather than a real problem about original Creation. I think it turned out this way because you were more willing to redefine terms than to consider an alternative to your pre-existing beliefs.-Blue Jay, Ph.D.* *Yeah, it's real Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
God said He finished with Creation, that's the whole thing I base it all on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I thought you were talking about nested hierarchy because that was the topic under discussion at the moment. Nothing devious or fancy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What happened to the Pod Mrcaru lizards is very easy to grasp without understanding all the mechanisms of genetics What happens in breeding animals is very easy to grasp with the most rudimentary understanding of genetics. Except you don't know what happens in either case. You think you "grasp" it, but your grasp is very superficial. It doesn't hold up under more intense scrutiny. Avoiding that scrutiny may keep the illusion up for yourself, but is not exactly honest or scientific.
There can't be any doubt that you have to lose genetic material to get new phenotypes, it's inevitable and it's just blowing smoke to say otherwise, and if you get a whole new population characterized by a new phenotype within thirty years -- and probably a lot less than that because it started with so few individuals -- then mutation couldn't have contributed to the result. Of course because of the adherence to the ToE your head is going to be full of ToE irrelevancies like natural selection, and everybody is going to think something far more complicated is going on, and genetics itself can be quite complicated, but this particular situation is open and shut. Time you recognized it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You remember how your claims are contradicted by direct observation, besides being absurd in principle? You remember how you can't find a single verifiable example of evolution working how you say it should?
So this is pretty much as close as you can get to reality becoming incarnate and calling you stupid in person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have learned some superficial things about genetics that seem to support your position, but that is where you stop. When you dig deeper into the subject you find that these superficial things are just that, superficial. You are not willing to dig deeper or to listen to those who have. I learn what I think I need to know for the argument I am making. I avoid information that doesn't seem to relate to it. I absorb whatever new information comes through these debates that is relevant to the argument I am making. I stop where it makes sense to stop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
dup
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My argument can't be contradicted by direct observation because it is only about what absolutely has to happen. So your claim can't be true no matter how many times you say it. YOu don't get new breeds or new variations in the wild unless you lose genetic material. There is no way around that.
Since you have no verifiable evidence of ToE claims, just theory piled on theory piled on conjecture piled on conjecture piled on absurd interpretations of minuscule clues, it's pot calling kettle black to accuse me of having no evidence. Especially after I listed all the examples I know fit what I'm saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
All the scientific work on the list of Nobel winners is genuine science. Evolution is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My argument can't be contradicted by direct observation because it is only about what absolutely has to happen. It is very easy to contradict such a claim. For example, if you claimed that pigs "have to" have wings, the observation of a wingless pig would refute this claim. In the same way, when you make equally absurd claims about how genetics "has to" work, the direct observation that it works the exact opposite way does indeed prove you wrong.
Since you have no verifiable evidence of ToE claims, just theory piled on theory piled on conjecture piled on conjecture piled on absurd interpretations of minuscule clues ... It's no use lying to me about the nature of the evidence. Save it for your local Sunday school class, little kids are ignorant and gullible and you might be able to deceive one.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024